I do actually agree with you, but aren't Leftist doing that very same thing when they say that a religious institution must marry gay couples, and they are using the federal government to do it. Isn't calling someone a Nazi or white-supremacist kind of hateful speech (when in fact they are not)? There are working class people in america who have been marginalized and told by BLM that they are a bunch of privileged racists and that's not okay. The left is actually responsible for Trump becoming president for this very reason good job now we all have to deal with his dumb-ass.
And I also think it's funny how the very first response was that Anarchism is on the left and made it seem like that was a given and I was dumb for asking. I'm here to learn and I'm trying to stay humble and open-minded even if others won't. I'm trying my best to show respect for everyone's views and my own views are not set in stone. Life is a journey and I am always looking to grow. But please people don't bash someone walking the journey like they are less-than.
Here's why you are being poorly received: Most of politics is, as I said above, basically a form of tribal aesthetics. You are speaking like Trump supporters speak, using similar buzzwords and similar nodes of outrage, and as such, regardless of the content of what you are saying, those who are committed anti-Trump folks must oppose you first and foremost in form - the content of your speech is irrelevant.
That said, this doesn't make you the victim of leftist rabble-rousing here, because beyond simply speaking like a rightwinger, you've actually apparently taken the bait by indulging distinctly rightwing fantasies. BLM is not "racist", they are misguided. They diagnose actual problems (at least insofar as they discuss
material elements of how the present system is racist) but employ idiotic tools like identity politics to address these problems. And so it is much more complicated than simple "reverse racism" or whatever.
Again, my focus on the particular problems that surround race focuses on material struggle. Offense and outrage are only relevant insofar as they are a gauge for material suffering - poverty, death, shortened life expectancy, physical injury, etc. Generally, the offense that the left takes is indicative of real material struggle. Women are raped more than men, enough to indicate that their material struggle is systemic. Blacks are more likely to be poor, not because of their own stupidity, but because in the five-hundred-year race for American wealth, they were chattel for the first 300 years, thus giving bourgeois anglo-whites a 300-year head start - it takes money to make money, and when you've been born with more, you'll make more. So while much of the outrage culture that the left has created is, I agree with you, idiotic, it is mostly rooted in actual material struggle. Thus, I reject their goals and means, but find more comraderie with them in the origins of their anger than those on the right.
Conversely, rightwing rage is generally not rooted in material struggle. Those on the right have, for the most part, nothing but
manufactured grievances that serve the elite. They are mad about things like taxes (mad? don't pay them) immigrants stealing jobs and being criminals (jobs you don't want and crimes that are blown out of proportion to stoke race war as a means to break working-class solidarity), free speech "rights" (again, "rights" do not exist unless you take them by force - stop bitching and carry a gun) and similar grievances that revolve around rights. Whites were never lynched, men are seldom raped, and Nixon-style "squares" only get the shaft because they are dumb enough to continue participating in a system that doesn't work anymore. The appropriate response is to become self-sufficient, practice self-defense, be humble and generous, understand the root of your political antagonists rage, and stop giving bait to trolls, as well as stop offering yourself as cannon fodder for the state-corporate complex.
That said, there are legitimate non-material grievances of the right that are valid and are, to a large extent, why Trump is currently in power - because the left won't consider these grievances or adjust to them. This is mostly because, for all their altruistic care for the oppressed, they simply have a fear and loathing of poor whites. Most liberals, if they go enough generations back, have country roots their ancestors forsook for a city life, and as such, shudder to look back at what was formerly their own ignorance. They'd rather tell poor white people to shut the fuck up, move to the city, and start drinking lattes like they did. In reality, the libs don't want to look at the facts about the history of poor white America, nor do they want to speak the language of us poor white trash here and now. Most of us came here in the 17th and 18th centuries against our will, kicked out of Ireland and Scotland, and forcibly placed in "indentured servitude" which never really ended until we said "fuck this" and headed to Appalachia. At one point, we led multi-ethnic slave rebellions alongside blacks and indians, and lived together in rebel slave and runaway indentured servant communities, interbreeding and protecting one another. It was only later that the ruling class made an effort to sow the seeds of white supremacy among the rural poor in order to serve Federalism, and later the Union, over and against multi-ethnic working class resistance. Now, both tendencies - racism / conservatism and a fierce anti-establishment sentiment - exist alongside one another in poor whites as a walking contradiction. History is glazed over to make it seem as though these two tendencies are one in the same, when in fact, one was manufactured by the largely urban, largely northern liberal culture of the rich.
This history is too complex for our political Twitter culture and its short attention span, and as such, all sides glaze it over completely and act smug about idiotic half-truths. The left says to poor whites - shut up and be like us because you're racist, and that's all there is to the story, and the right sells them a cheap and half-assed picture of their own history as an attempt to fuel sentiments that will only further entrench them in the very exclusion and disenfranchisement they currently suffer.
The anarchist says, "fuck
all of this", looks at the real history, listens to the voices of everyone skeptically and finds the kernel of truth that drives every loon in the pond to say what they are saying. They distinguish themselves from the horde, hone in on what disgusts them, and subvert and make war upon it. This process tends, again, toward the origins of leftist sympathies, but generally does not contain the means and the ends of the left. They get their means and ends from the right: subsistence, self-defense, and old-fashioned neighbors-helping-neighbors community.
All this is to say: Some of what you're saying is right, but you need to look deeper to begin to grapple with the sorts of things you're talking about. Look beyond BLM toward the Black Panthers, beyond complaining about taxes and welfare to tax resistance and local, community-based welfare systems, and beyond all the short-attention-span shenanigans of politics today toward real education and real discussion of the issues and their history.
